WI: John Paul Jones' raid on Whitehaven had been succesful?

Might it have a reverse effect and cause Parliament to be more anti-colonial? Fighting a war for 'independence' in a far away land is one thing, and easier to sympathize with. But attacking and killing British men IN England itself? Might be a public outrage.

mowque

That's what I just replied to someone else who asked a similar question, which I got to 1st.;) Mind you he was also talking about burning the town as well.

Given how controlled war generally was at the time [at least in 'civilised' areas] and the degree of sympathy felt for some of the rebels until then there would probably be a strong reaction against the atrocity. At worst it might be the case of the gloves coming off and replying in kind in areas under rebel control.:( Better still it permanently alienates a lot of people against the rebels, leading to full effort in Britain and many waivers in the colonies coming off the fence against the rebels.

Whether such a small force could commit such a slaughter is also doubtful. Even if, as is probably likely, most of the 200 ships were only small fishing vessels that is likely to mean the attackers would be heavily outnumbered and the owners and crew are unlikely to stand by while their livelihoods are destroyed by a bunch of pirates. Hence possibly the most likely outcome is a bloody fight with the surviving rebels being summarily hung before any authorities reach the area.

Steve
 
Where's the atrocity in destroying ships in a harbor? When Sir Francis Drake did this, you made him into a national hero.
 
Where's the atrocity in destroying ships in a harbor? When Sir Francis Drake did this, you made him into a national hero.

Faeelin

a) That was several centuries ago in a bloodier period of deep religious hostility. That period meant a reaction against such excesses and the 18thC was largely one of limited warfare to prevent such devastation.

b) Drake's action was against warships being prepared for an invasion, not a collection of merchant ships.

c) As I said the other post, not sure about this one, suggested that they also planned to burn the town.

Steve
 
Faeelin

a) That was several centuries ago in a bloodier period of deep religious hostility. That period meant a reaction against such excesses and the 18thC was largely one of limited warfare to prevent such devastation.

b) Drake's action was against warships being prepared for an invasion, not a collection of merchant ships.

c) As I said the other post, not sure about this one, suggested that they also planned to burn the town.

Steve

I'd like to add to this:

d) Drake was English and burned ships not belonging to the English. Therefore he is a national hero.
 

archaeogeek

Banned
I'd like to add to this:

d) Drake was English and burned ships not belonging to the English. Therefore he is a national hero.

That, you can bet the British were wailing when De Ruyter had the nerve to do the same.
At worst he'd get a slap on the wrist.
At best he'd be a national hero for the US, and would probably get the red ribbon in France :p - while the french foreign minister was not much for an all-out invasion of Britain, there was a fairly strong party in the government for it (and it was very very tied with the whole war to begin with, given the same man behind this had been passing french personnel as military advisors clandestinely and was instrumental in convincing Louis XVI to take up the american cause)
 
In 1778, John Paul Jones, father of the American Navy, landed in Whitehaven, England, with a group of American Marines, planning to burn the 200 ships in the harbor there. However, his Marines instead jumped ship and went to the nearest pub to drink: Jones managed to sink only one ship. What if his Marines had stayed with him and he had sunk most of, or all of the ships in the harbor? How is the ARW affected?

If the raid had achieved its goal then the first reaction would be shock followed by anger. Sympathizers for the revolutionary cause in England (and there were many influential people) would be marginalized and the war would have got a little nastier. It would look more like Mel Gibson's fantasy English hate film 'The Patriot'.

The final outcome would be that Whitehaven would have become famous and could further exploit the event for tourist purposes in the 21st C because there is NOTHING there now except a pub named in John Paul Jones honour.
 
Except he'd have as much legitimacy in the eyes of the British as the puppet regime installed by the Soviets in Kabul in 1979. Or Budapest in 1956. Or Prague in 1968. Or Poland in 1980. Or most Central American banana republics in the 1890s-1930s.

And you haven't denied the bourbon charge.:rolleyes:

Well now I deny it! I prefer wine! :p

But does it really matter how much legitimacy he'd have in the eyes of the British people? I mean, if he's backed up by a powerful French (or, if the revolution there goes as IOTL, just Spanish) and Scots (if Jones great desire, independence for Scotland, worked out) army, could he remain in power long enough for the British to collectively get over it?

Forgive me if it's implausible. It's just that my history class just covered the end of the Stuart dynasty, and I'm hung up on restoring them somehow.
 
Faeelin

a) That was several centuries ago in a bloodier period of deep religious hostility. That period meant a reaction against such excesses and the 18thC was largely one of limited warfare to prevent such devastation.

b) Drake's action was against warships being prepared for an invasion, not a collection of merchant ships.

c) As I said the other post, not sure about this one, suggested that they also planned to burn the town.

Steve

a) Drake's raid was not as long back in time from the attempted Jones raid (about 195 years) as Jones' raid was to us (220 years).
So not so vast a distance in time, relatively speaking. And like Britain, the US was fighting for it's existence. In fact, the invaders had already landed in force! Oh, did Drake bother to check to see if any of the ships he attacked were mere merchant vessels (TROOP TRANSPORTS!:eek:)? Would it have made a difference?:p

b) Commerce raiding isn't legal???:confused: Tell that to the Royal Navy warships destroying so many supply ships heading for America, meant for Washington's Army. The one thing the RN managed to do in spectacularly successful fashion to the end of the war. The side with overwhelming naval supremacy always screams "PIRATE!":mad: when the other side goes after their merchant ships.

c) Agreed.
 
This is the U.S Marine Corps they'll just make some rope tie three ships behind the one that has a Marine piloting it and take them back to Boston Harbor.

Sorry, but this is NOT the disciplined USMC of the United States of America. That's why the song starts with: "From the halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli..." Like the Continental Army, it was an ad hoc force thrown together with no real sense of unit cohesion, hence the pub drinking. Just as the TRUE United States Army would not be created until Major General Baron William Frederick Von Steuben whipped the troops into shape at Valley Forge, so the USN and USMC would not truly be founded until the Washington Administration.
 
Top